one and a half million neglected children in uk

[Longlost10]

Action for children chugger in the shopping mall this afternoon, tried to convince me that there are one and a half million neglected children in the uk, relying on charity donations for education and medical care.

can't get my head round that.

I think me skepticism offended him, but I didn't find anything he said convincing...

AIBU? or is it true?

Of course its neglectful for a nrp not to pay for his children to eat.
HE is neglecting them.
They may have a great life provided by there mother but the nrp is still neglecting them.

Neglect is the ongoing failure to meet a child's basic needs and is the most common form of child abuse.

this is exactly what nrps are doing when they walk away and provide nothing.

Too bloody true Lilac

I don't understand why anyone would be arguing against absent fathers being emotionally and financially negligent.

education and medical care

People in deprived families are less able to support their do in accessing those services effectively usually because of the childhoods of those parents and so on. For example a child who left school having not attained the expected level in reading may have done so because their parents couldn't read.

And then when that child is a parent, a parent who still has poor literacy skills, again their dc will be at the disadvantage of having a parent that is poorly equipped to support them through their education.

Sadly it's charities that usually pick up the baton and provide services to improve adult literacy with the understanding that it's not a case of 'all the parents who can't read step this way' because there will be other inherent barriers to overcome for them to access the support such as shame and distrust of education and fear of failure etc.

Piss myself laughing at the ideas it's perfectly o k for my ex to not financially support his children and that's not abuse but that when I work full time, plus extra where/when I can get it and provide everything for 3 children and I might get a bit pissed off about it all, it's me that's being abusive. Jesus wept. An awful lot.

Poverty?
Neglect?
Or both?
Totally different things. I find this questionable, and if it is untrue, offensive.

I don't know about Jesus but I've wept an awful lot!

If children are living in extreme poverty, lots of their needs are being neglected. That doesn't mean the parent(s) doesn't want to tend to those needs, but that they can't.

Who really gives a fuck about semantics when there are 1.7 MILLION children living in severe poverty in the UK? Children in this bracket are 2.5 times more likely to suffer from chronic illness, and have a 10% higher infant mortality rate, and so much more.

You can argue about the words used but does it matter?

1.7 million is agreed by barnardos, the child poverty action group, the governments child poverty commission, and based on stats from the Dept of Work and Pensions and the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

I think its quite a safe stat.

Good post. Studies and statistics always differ

Not always, consensus is often acheived with repeated results.

It's not ok for the NRP to not support their children financially or emotionally

However the children are only neglected if they have no one else meeting their needs. If the RP- say the mother- decided to up sticks and leave one day and a grandparent cared for the child they wouldn't be neglected than either. They would be neglected if a care giver was not meeting their basic needs. That's all there is to it really.

Doesn't mean the NRP who doesn't support isn't a total cunt though.

Charities usually outsource chugging- there are companies who provide it. The person at your door likely knew nothing about the charity but was saying the things that would pull at for heartstrings the most. It's their lack of knowledge you're seeing, not bad data or false statistics.

I do recall reading a report a while ago I think from the round tree trust, that detailed poverty as families living with less than £333 per week after housing. Poverty is 60% of the median income. Much higher than I or probably most people realise. Lots of posters here probably living in poverty.

severe poverty is defined by a household with an income of below 50 per cent of the median (after housing costs), and where both adults and children lack at least one basic necessity, and either adults or children (under the age of 14) or both groups lack at least two basic necessities. On average families in severe poverty are getting by on less than £134 per week for a lone parent with one child and less than £240 per week for a couple with two children

From the London School of Economics definitions.

On average families in severe poverty are getting by on less than £134 per week for a lone parent with one child and less than £240 per week for a couple with two children

is that before or after housing? If it is after housing, surely that is most of us? and we are the 4th richest nation in the world, so to define most of us as poor seems to be stretching the definition a bit too far!

I know for around 12 years we were technically "below the bread line" according to the definition used by our education authority, however my children were not neglected! Nor were we particularly poor, for much of that time, in the end I had to cut back on work and go onto benefits to ensure I had a budget which meant I could eat though, but my children never missed a meal ever.

I don't particularly think these "poverty" figures are much to worry about.

I do think a key factor in considering a family involuntarily disadvantaged in their housing situation. Real over crowding, (not the official definition of an average of above 1.5 people per bedroom-that is not over crowding!) or damp conditions, or lack of security, these are terrible things to live with. Lack of heating is bad for the worst couple of days a year, although we managed without quite happily for years.

If the charity was collecting for children inadequately housed, to move them into dry, secure, spacious housing, then I would give cheerfully.

*So why aren't the deadbeat dads charged with neglect?

If I did what my ex did then DS would be roaming the streets in an Artful Dodger kind of way.

We both have 'Parental Responsibility'. Why is he allowed to fuck off?

What if tomorrow I packed up and left? Would we both he arrested??*

The way in which legal responsibility for neglect works is to do with assumed responsibility. So, for example, say you went round and fed your elderly neighbour everyday and you knew she had no other way of getting food and no way to contact other help. If you just stop one day and don't tell anyone then you would be criminally responsible for her death potentially.

So the parental responsibility thing is a red herring. Its about who has assumed responsibility for your DS' care. I guess if you left DS at his dad's and then he didn't feed or house him then he'd be arrested, I don't think you would. If his dad dropped him off at social services and said neither of you can look after him then I'm not sure. Are parents able to relinquish their kids in this way?

None of this takes away from your DS' dad being a prick and a deadbeat of course.

I don't particularly think these "poverty" figures are much to worry about

Really? Higher illness rates, higher death rates, lower educational attainment, lower life expectency, children who don't get breakfast, children in the Uk malnourished, illiteracy, depression, addiction....all linked to childhood poverty, thats not much to worry about?

Huh.

Poverty and Neglect are two different things (though by no means mutually exclusive) They are also relative, rather than absolute.

In terms of 'poverty' I do think that the move to consider it in relative terms was an absolute gift to the left they must have pinched themselves when that new definition was agreed

I recall reading a while back that poverty decreased during the last recession - on account of average incomes falling. That, to me, highlights the absurdity of it all.

I think we're getting onto a similar debate with regards to neglect. By considering it in relative terms, you take your eye off the absolute cases - all the while providing 'jobs' for 'charities'